Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bedel v. Industrial Commission, 428 P.2d 134.

38 citing documents.

Reynolds Metal Co. v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Reynolds Metal Co. v. Industrial Commission 527 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Clark v. Industrial Commission 502 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Clark v. Industrial Commission 502 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
103 , ]; Bedwell [Bedel] v. Industrial Commission of Arizona (1967), , , Re: ‘disability’); that should said condition ultimately worsen, applicant has reopening rights (A.R.S.
Employers Mut. L. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Indus. Com'n 498 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Employers Mut. L. Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Indus. Com'n 498 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Employers Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission 498 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Micucci v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Micucci v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Massingill v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Massingill v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Massingill v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Massingill v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
A. Yes, sir.” , the court said: “When the results of an industrial accident are not clearly apparent to the layman, the causal relationship between the accident and the petitioner’s physical condition must be determined by expert medical testimony.
Masters v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Masters v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Zazueta v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Zazueta v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
467 , , Lowry v. In *427 dustrial Commission
Asbury v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Asbury v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Stevens v. Industrial Commission 481 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Stevens v. Industrial Commission 481 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Fyffe v. Industrial Commission, 10 Ariz.App.
State Compensation Fund v. Moore 481 P.2d 306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State Compensation Fund v. Moore 481 P.2d 306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In this case there was no affirmative medical testimony that a causal relationship existed between the accident and the petitioner’s disability * * * ” , also Beougher v. Industrial Commission, 12 Ariz.App.
Buckhalter v. Industrial Commission 472 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Buckhalter v. Industrial Commission 472 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Where the result of an injury is not obvious, such as the loss of an arm or foot, medical testimony is necessary to establish the industrial injury and the extent thereof, , , and where the case calls for expert testimony, as here, we will not substitute our opinion for that of the Commission in resolving conflicts in the expert testimony.
Thomas v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Thomas v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Patton v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Patton v. Industrial Commission 467 P.2d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Fyffe v. Industrial Commission, 10 Ariz.App.
Bedel v. Industrial Commission 463 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Bedel v. Industrial Commission 463 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Norris v. Industrial Commission 461 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Norris v. Industrial Commission 461 P.2d 694 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
It is not a question which can be solved by the ordinary layman unless, of course, the result of the accident is one which is clearly apparent, i. e., the loss of a limb
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Industrial Commission 439 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Industrial Commission 439 P.2d 542 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Montgomery v. Industrial Commission 436 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Montgomery v. Industrial Commission 436 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by